ineptwriter

Thanks - I was using Firefox on a mac. But you're right, Chrome doesn't have this issue.

Neat project! Would be an interesting way to read a book. Not sure if this is a built-in feature for typing practice. But one small obstacle I encountered was that if I missed a space or I put in an extra character, but kept typing, then everything that came after was in red (wrong). May be hard to implement, but maybe letting a single mistake show in these instances without marking everything that follows as a mistake.

Like others have said, this ignores reinvesting wealth and returns to invested wealth. Here is a table like PG's for each wealth tax %, but calculating wealth after 60 years with 4% annually compounding interest (i.e. 60 years later after annual taxes and 4% annual returns):

0.1% 993% 0.5% 788% 1.0% 589% 2.0% 328% 3.0% 182% 4.0% 100% 5.0% 55%

Sure, with a 0.5% annual wealth tax and no returns, the government would have taken 26% of a founder's initial wealth over 60 years. But if a founder reinvested and got a reasonable rate of return (4%), they'd have 788% of their initial wealth after that annual tax. Just like "small tax rates produce such dramatic effects", compounding interest produces dramatic effects that more than offset such taxes.

Hmmm... I'm also curious why JPMorgan Chase only had 4% of the rescue program ($14B out of $349B) when they have 9-10% of the commercial banking market share (IBIS World). Maybe they don't serve small businesses as much as other banks? Or did some other banks get a disproportionately large % of the total?

My point is less a knock on mathematicians and more that folks underestimate the expertise and time spent by fiction writers. And there is less support for writers along the way. And the emphasis on "more" here illustrations that. People tend to discount fiction writers because they write outside of institutions and because popular books distract and detract.

Expertise: Take the most recent 4 Fields medalists. All 4 have PhDs (all of which were completed in less then 5 years, though that's more a testament to them) and worked in academia/research since undergrad. Compare them to the two MacArthur Genius grant winners who are writers (announced today), only one has a PhD, the other an MFA. So does that mean that the Fields winners have more training? Maybe, but there are very few creative writing PhDs in the world (maybe 100 PhD spots across all programs vs. what 5,000 math PhD students?). MFAs are considered terminal degrees, last 2-4 years, and many require you to pay for them vs. Math PhDs mostly are fully funded. So what's a fiction writer to do? Get a PhD in something else (Valeria) or string together fellowships and jobs for (4-5) years (in Ocean's case) before you can get an academic appointment. Does that mean Ocean's 2 year MFA + 4-5 years on his own is less expertise than a math PhD? Maybe, but there isn't the same support. After this, mathematicians and writers start looking the same (have academic jobs, teach part-time, work part-time). Except both writers produced at least two books on their own before they could get academic appointments whereas none of the Fields folks have left academia since undergrad. That's years the writers had to support themselves while also writing.

Time: Hard to tell on this one. But Alessio Figalli (Fields) has produced 125 papers that seem to be about 20 pages in length in 12 years of publishing, so that's ~2500 pages, or ~200 pages a year. And Valeria Luiselli (MacArthur) has published ~1000 pages in books in 8 years, or ~125 pages a year. If they both spent the same amount of time working and each page was unique (may not be the case for Alessio), then Valeria spent more time per page. If Valeria had less time because they had a full time job versus part time teaching or Alessio's papers repeat some of his work, them maybe it's similar amounts of time per page. And if a student leaves their MFA with half a book and a few small publications, keeps writing the book for a few years before publishing it (Ocean Veong's Night Sky With Exit Wounds) vs. a math PhD publishes their thesis plus 2 short papers out of their PhD (Akshay Venkatesh's thesis + 2 short papers from 2002) isn't that roughly the same output in the same amount of time?

Admittedly one can't use isolated examples to deduce general truths, but it's illustrative. And when you start comparing, say Donald Knuth to Toni Morrison, both have decades of expertise and spent hours laboring over each page, so it starts to seem moot. And fiction books tend to sell more copies so can be priced less because of scale.

Reacting to this: "I can imagine that a page of mathematics requires more expertise and time to write than a page of fiction."

I cannot say exactly how much time it takes to write a page of math, but I do know that many underestimate the time it takes to write a page of fiction. Sure Dan Brown probably knocks out a page of pulpy prose in an hour. But that's not exactly equivalent to critical reviewed, prize winning, literature. Nor is it what most writers strive for. Many fiction writers have spent years writing their books, recieved graduate degrees (some that they paid for), stuck failed novels in drawers, produced multiple drafts, been rejected hundreds of times, etc. I.E. labored over each page and fought for each step. Beloved was Toni Morrison's 5th book, not published until she was 56. That's decades of work to get to that point. Try looking at any page of James Joyce Ulyssess. That book alone spawned the PhDs of hundreds (thousands?) of scholars in English departments across the world just to understand it. Math too takes this level of work, it's just that they're more equivalent than some think.

Except, even though many fiction writers labor over every word and punctuation mark, there are not the same institutions to support them as there are mathematicians. Want to pursue a career in math? - enroll in a fully funded PhD in Mathematics, hopefully get a post-doc, then a tenure track job, etc. Admittedly not all succeed on this route, and it's not easy, there are teaching and publication responsibilities, but it exists. For writing? You're on your own until you produce critically acclaimed works, generally two successful books, usually while pursuing separate careers. Then you can apply for tenure-track jobs. There's not the same caccoon to usher in writing talent. Even Dan Brown, whose prose I just bashed, spent 14 years as a songwriter and High School English teacher before the Da Vinci code (his fourth book) garnered attention.

So I'd disagree, many (most? - not sure) fiction takes significant expertise and time to produce, and usually without the support of academic institutions that budding math talent has.

As someone wrapping up his Writing MFA, I'd add, first that it's possible to treat writing and making a living as two mutually exclusive problems to solve. With a significant tech or dev background it's possible to work freelance to make a living, while carving out time to write.

And since, second, writing takes years to be good at, this is a great strategy to have anyway. It's highly debateble how long one should persist pursuing writing before giving up. But, I'd guess, most of the "successful" writers of today took 5-18 years of writing before they achieved "success". That is my opinion, but I've heard it said by many other "successful" writers (George Saunders, Toni Morrison, Elizabeth Strout, etc. etc.). Again, "success" != money.

With one caveat: a few (hard to get) MFA programs fully fund (tuition + living stipend) their students (usually in return for teaching). It's one of the few ways to be paid to write for 2-3 years, and admittance to one of those programs is a good goal to strive for, even if you think of those 2-3 years as a break from a tech career. Similarly, the programs where you pay for your MFA are generally poor financial decisions.